A New York critic says a Seattle critic is not nice? Talk about turning tables on geographical assumptions.

The problem started with Scherr’s post on the new dance critic hired at the New York Times, London’s Alastair Macaulay. She wrote that even though he was a fine critic, she was dismayed, because he’s not a woman and not a New Yorker.

Then she called out the Times’ previous dance critic, John Rockwell, for referring (when? where? context?) to the three female freelance dance critics at the Times as “the girls.”

Here’s what I wrote to her:

Hi. I like your blog and like the challenge of this post, which I mainly don’t agree with.

What’s your point? Women don’t get a fair shake as dance critics at NYT? You can’t say that while admitting that the Anna Kisselgoff era was endless. Toot! Toot! The logic train is leaving the station without you.

And if John Rockwell happened to call freelancers he knows “girls,” so what? Girl isn’t so awful an insult, and yes, if you want to call him and whatever male cohorts he can muster to make four at bridge the boys, I’m sure he’ll take it like a man.

You say the new hire is good, but why isn’t he a woman and from New York?

London is not Mars. There is much intellectual traffic between the two cities.

I sincerely don’t understand why you want him to be a woman. Isn’t it more important that he connect with the field in a vital way?

Remember Jack Anderson at the Times? Years went by, and his dance reviews never got any better. And Ms. K? She was better than he was by miles without actually being any more than moderately serviceable.

I can’t believe you believe your post. Upon reflection, wouldn’t you agree it’s just too tiresome for words?

Sincerely, Regina Hackett, (Art To Go)

Here’s her reply:

Wouldn’t I “agree it’s just too tiresome for words”? No. But I’d agree you need to learn some manners.

Nevertheless, I’ll answer you: As I said at the top of the last post, this wasn’t the occasion for going into all of the problems with the Kisselgoff and Rockwell reigns. But yes, Kisselgoff was terrible AND a woman. This does not mean that a woman would have to be terrible, however.

As I mentioned before, the ranks of journalists, even among critics, are skewed heavily toward men. The fact that in the one field where women have been such a majority–such avid participants, enthusiasts and writers–the Times couldn’t find one for the open post is a case in point.

About candidates for dance critics: you need to judge women on their JOURNALISM–on the reviews themselves. I got a peek at the notice of Macaulay’s hire that the Times sent around to the staff, and they seemed most impressed by all the books he had written.

There are several women writers based in New York who I think would make a splendid co-chief right now. I don’t think the three freelancers whom Rockwell hired two years ago have yet demonstrated adequate critical chops for the top post. That they’re all more fun and interesting to read than either Rockwell or Kisselgoff says something, but perhaps not enough. On the other hand, they’ve been quite limited, word-count-wise. Maybe with more words and a better example…. (Jennifer Dunning, of course, has been there for a long time–and her example is wonderful. The fact that the Times overlooked her when they needed an interim chief is another case of their slobbiness.)

But that’s the point: The Times auditioned three people who had insufficient experience as critics. Of course they weren’t going to be moved up, and the Times would have to hire yet another person to be chief. The whole process was thoughtless and dishonest.

It’s very possible the Times would have treated men just as shoddily, but it so happened they did this to women, and at my age–I’m 43, perhaps an older generation than your own–it seems horribly familiar.

Does the Times’ recklessness reflect badly on Macaulay? Not at all. It just happens to be the situation he’s inheriting.

Because she doesn’t seem to be printing any more comments from me, I’ll respond here.

Dear Foot in Mouth:

You’re guessing that I’m a generation younger than you, and you’re 43? Not even close, babe. Respect your elders. If those elders are critics who have stayed awake and have not yet started to lose their marbles, they know more.

Case in point: The Times gave the top visual art critic spot to Michael Kimmelman, whose experience at that point was mostly in music. If editors wanted to move any of the three dance freelancers up, they would have. They gave it to Alastair Macaulay because they think he’s the best.

I don’t know if you’ve heard this, but critics around the country in fields other than dance tend to agree that dance critics wear their nerves on the outside of their bodies. They’re quick to take offense and bad at dialogue.

I love what he said about ignorance: “I do not claim to have expertise on all forms of dance, but I do not claim that expertise is a critic’s starting-point anyway. A critic starts always in ignorance. What he/she does not know in advance of a performance is at least as important as the knowledge with which he/she arrives at that performance. What matters more are keenness of sensibility, a sense of the world outside dance, and the serious application of larger criteria. Above all, a critic needs a passion for the truth — for what he/she feels to be true.”

Welcome to the States, Macaulay. I’ll match you in keen and truthful ignorance any day.